I don’t remember this much trouble being cause by Alec Baldwin’s comments. Did GLAAD even weigh in on that?

GLAAD is just another liberal facade. Just like the National Organization for Women, they only criticize non-liberals. They care nothing about tolerance or equality. It’s all choreographed stunt intended to produce a desired political outcome. Everything they do is staged.

Actually, it is a form of censorship if A&E, as it has done, engages in retribution to punish the expression of an opinion it doesn’t believe in. It would be the same as if the Government punished an individual for expressing an unpopular opinion. The objective, in each case, is to quash the expression of ideas and opinions.

The difference is, A&E, as a private entity, has every right to engage in censorship of its employees. The Government is not allowed to do so.

And applauding this type of punitive censorship, as several have done, is an expression of support and approval for it.

I wonder… is the reason liberal gays do not speak out against the likes of Ahmadinejad that they are scared of him? Is it a political-cultural form of passive-aggression? Think about it: they do not speak against somebody who not only makes blunt statements of the doctrines of his faint, but also carries out the punishment prescribed by his faith for their “sin.” Then they turn around and attack a man who’s sole fault was a rather blunt statement of the doctrines of his belief, the key difference being that this man does not believe that the murder of homosexuals for homosexual acts is acceptable.

One is a murderous tyrant. The other is a peaceful patriarch. GLAAD really are paragons of courage, aren’t they?

I think that’s one of the reasons, Sean. But the thing is, liberals don’t really Ahmedinejihad the way they hate Christians. They crave the approval of other liberals, and Christian-bashing gets them that. But criticizing Muslims runs the risk of being called a racist.

Remember what our old troll Levi used to say. “I don’t care about gays getting killed in Iran because that’s their problem.”

Censorship is the use of government force to silence. I’m not aware of anyone calling for the government to silence Robertson under threat of punishment. A private entity is not required to broadcast views it deems inappropriate and A&E is well within its rights and propriety to exercise voluntary association in the suspension of Robertson, just as I am in choosing not to view A&E.

Any time a media figure is fired for his/her views, cries of censorship are heard. This is a mistaken application of what censorship really is. I also disagree with A&E’s decision and their reasons; there may indeed be a possible breach of contract in this particular case, but I absolutely support A&E’s right to run its business and manage its corporate image as it sees fit.

I don’t want to get distracted by semantics. The fact is, liberals demanded that he be silenced. The word ‘censorship’ applies, but if that’s the nut you want to get wrapped around, just call it ‘suppression of free speech.’ The intent and effect are the same, regardless of what word you apply to it.

I’m weary of the statement “This isn’t about the First Amendment because it’s a private corporate decision.”

For one thing, no one is arguing otherwise. It’s tiresome to hear this chestnut trotted out every five minutes. Yes, we get it.

It’s also untrue. Yes, the First Amendment, strictly speaking, applies only to the government. But there is a spirit of the First Amendment too, not just a restriction on government action.

And that spirit is this:

That we should have, to the extent compatible with ordered liberty, the maximum possible right to think and say and believe what we choose, and anyone who attempts to use force to coerce someone to think and say and believe something that is alien to them is acting contrary to the spirt of the First Amendment.

I’ve said this a dozen times:

The real, tangible threat to our right to think and speak as we will, as conscience, faith, or reason (or all three together) might impel us, is not from the government, but from our employers, and from the massively corporate media institutions that impose real penalties on people — fines, really, imposed by firings, suspensions, mandatory Thought Rehab and so forth — for daring to utter words other than the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.

Yes, A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robinson. A&E also has the right to stand up for a broad and generous principle of Freedom of Thought and Expression.

Anytime someone is corrected re. their usage of a term with legal and constitutional definitions, the correction is dismissed as “…distracted by semantics…”

The fact is, liberals demanded that he be silenced.

Again, who made these demands? Robertson isn’t silenced. That he isn’t being broadcasted on A&E doesn’t mean he cannot continue to express his views. A&E has no responsibility to provide an outlet for those views (although there may be contractual implications, as I’ve stated above).

The intent and effect are the same, regardless of what word you apply to it.

TnnsNe1, very likely and A&E didn’t leave Robertson’s ‘offensive and homophobic’ statements on the editing room floor. Everyone is so busy being offended at Robertson that they haven’t given time to realize that reality television isn’t — it’s actually extremely calculated and produced. Perhaps there has been criticism from the professionally outraged of A&E’s decision to broadcast Robertson’s monologue in question, but I have yet to read it.

The hypocrisy of leftists is sometimes just astonishing. They pick out Phil Robertson who didn’t really harm anybody but expresses a viewpoint they don’t like and demonize him. His comments were a little edgy but no where near as bad and his clarification is satisfy. But Alec Baldwin has a long history of saying vulgar things especially gay slurs. And what does the left do? Give him a job at the lowest barrel scraping network that is MSNBC. And fired him after making more vulgar statements to a reporter. Why the hell did you take him if you knew he has a history of saying vulgar things?

The irony here is that the show portrays this family (within the definitions of ‘reality’ TV, as Ignatius touched on) as being devoutly Christian, including their family meals, including their prayers of thanks.
Now that one of the shows principals gives voice to some of the values that the show hasn’t had any problem airing, with A&E receiving an earful from members of the Church of the Perpetually Offended, they sh*tcan him.
This family doesn’t need A&E.
They should pack up and take their VERY profitable franchise to another outlet, one that won’t knuckle under to the shrieking of the Gay Mafia.

“Conservatives have always had trouble grasping the difference between public censorship and private enterprise. With a few exceptions, like whistleblower laws and National Labor Relations Board protections against being fired for off-site discussions about work conditions (exceptions that, in almost every case, conservatives bitterly opposed), there is no legal or constitutional right to free speech on private property. You can be fired for calling your boss a dick, and you can just as easily be let go by a profit-seeking media company for imperiling its relationship with advertisers. And incidentally, this is the way true conservatives, and especially true hardcore speech advocates, have always wanted it. Could you imagine the uproar if someone passed a law saying that Martin Bashir couldn’t be bounced from a broadcast job for saying Sarah Palin was a good candidate to have feces shoved in her mouth? Now that would be censorship. Remember, nobody heard a peep from Sarah Palin about free speech after that episode.” – Matt Taibbi, writing for Rolling Stone

Conservatives Rusty have has always had trouble grasping the difference between public censorship his childish fantasies (unicorns that p*ss hot chocolate and sh*t cotton candy) and private enterprise realities of the grown up world.

According to his (then) employer, Bashir resigned, after suggesting that a noxious act be committed upon a specific person.
Robertson expressed his views in a venue other than his employer’s and the printed content was signed off on by that employer, A&E.

Remember, nobody heard a peep from Sarah Palin about free speech after that episode.

If there is a word besides ‘censorship’ to describe the suppression of free speech by a private entity, please provide it.

Robertson’s speech isn’t being suppressed. He’s being neither censored nor, now, sponsored. A&E’s suspension of Robertson is called liberty, i.e. A&E’s freedom to prevent the expression of or association with viewpoints on its own channel via license that are counter to its stated values is also free speech.

Similarly, ‘news’ organizations aren’t obligated to present what any of us thinks is a fair assessment of a particular issue. MSNBC has made it very clear they have no intention of practicing what is sometimes called ‘journalism’. Instead, they practice editorialism/opinionism/advocacy. It’s their call because it’s their network and they have no duty to ensure that my viewpoints are presented.

So, Iggy isn’t bothered that Phil Robertson was punished for speaking his mind, because it doesn’t meet his technical and highly inaccurate definition of censorship.

Whatevs.

I still believe that suppression of speech by any means (including retribution) and by any entity meets the definition of censorship, and the doctionary agrees with me. The definition of censorship is not narrowly limited to a Government official crossing out words with a black marker. It is the principle of the thing that matters.

First, we must examine the groups making these claims. They are conservatives, and most conservatives claim to be free-market supporters. I am also a conservative (more so a “conservatarian”), but those making these claims are wrong, and their claims demonstrate an unclear understanding of the free-market.

SEE RELATED: ‘Duck Dynasty’ shows it is time to stop being tolerant of tolerance police
When Chick-fil-A’s CEO Dan Cathy made anti-gay comments, before donating to traditional marriage groups, conservatives criticized liberals who protested Chick-fil-A. “It’s a private business. Deal with it,” conservatives shouted.

However, now the tables have turned. Today, conservatives are screaming, “First Amendment rights!” Meanwhile, from those same conservatives, hardly a trickle of non-biased commentary is provided. It seems they lack a neutral tone in support of the free-market.

Do you support the free-market or not? Either you believe in private enterprise, or you believe that laws should govern the market. No ambiguous middle ground can exist here. Why? The very moment that one violates the underlying principle of free-market capitalism in pursuance of supporting individual values is the moment when the principle of economic liberty is destroyed. Moving forward, all with differing values will pursue law and government intervention in order to achieve these values.

Comment by rusty of the never ending childhood — December 20, 2013 @ 2:37 pm

Who wrote that for you?
Or did you cut and paste without attribution?

Dan Cathy commented on his not supporting the vile fraud known as “gay marriage”.
That’s not “anti gay” to anyone but you and your obnoxious herd, as each and every one of you think that everyone who doesn’t kiss your pampered asses and tell you how wonderful you are is a “hater”.
You DO NOT have a right to live your life free from criticism and hurt feelings.

Do your stupidity, immaturity and narcissism know any bounds at all, or are they infinite like the universe?

So people can have a religious opinion, and that opinion is protected by the 1st Amendment, by they are not allowed to express that opinion?

I thought Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion were both parts of the First Amendment??? I personally don’t see that much difference between the two. Every person forms their opinion according to their own sense of right and wrong. That sense of right and wrong, of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, is a set of spiritual concepts that every person has. Even atheists have a moral standard that is protected by the first amendment.

The deception here is that Civil Rights only protect ‘select’ groups of people. The truth is that every person has the same rights. Civil Rights are individual rights.

The left is trying to impose social limits on certain people, based only on identity. You cant have Social Justice without some sort of Social Authority. But not only is the PC crowd NOT the social authority of the United States, there is no social authority in the United States! There is no ‘Identity Police’.

The Constitution is a LEGAL Justice system of this nation, and it is made up of laws that were debated by congress and signed into action by the president. The rules are well documented.

Social Justice is an arbitrary standard that is pushed by the liberal left, with rules that have never been approved by any branch of government, and what’s meaning changed from situation to situation. These rules rarely ever apply to liberal indiscretion.

Liberal Social Justice is not the law of the land, and Americans have no duty to comply with that ever changing standard of social acceptance.

There is still the fact that A&E only suspended Mr. Robertson after howls of scandal from GLAAD. Orthodox Christians are told that they “have to tolerate others’ views,” but when an orthodox Christian repeats the position of their church on homosexuality, which should not be a surprise to anybody at this point, lefty gays clutch their pearls and faint onto the couch that very conveniently materialized. So we’ve gone from “you can’t refuse us service for our weddings” to “you can’t withhold validation.” Charming.

This is “one-way tolerance,” when one party can make all the demands they want of the other party, without any consideration for the other parties objections or needs, and the other party must meet those demands post haste and without complaint or face the consequences. Come to think of it, “one-way tolerance” is a rather nice double-speak way of saying “tyranny”: the peasants have to “tolerate” the tyrant’s decrees, and the tyrant punishes resistance through mass arrests and massacres. Congrats, GLAAD. You have become the very monster you claim to fight against.

So, Iggy isn’t bothered that Phil Robertson was punished for speaking his mind…

A&E is exercising liberty. Nothing to see here, working as intended.

What does bother me is A&E’s apparent submissiveness to pressure groups and its hypocrisy re. signing off on the contents of an interview, then firing the interviewee for expressing views consistent with what A&E likely hoped would be the source of mockery (and a lot of cold, hard cash). But I’m not bothered that much (nor am I surprised), as A&E will suffer the consequences of their decisions if they are bad ones. Again, working as intended.

…because it doesn’t meet his technical and highly inaccurate definition of censorship.

I don’t consult Wikipedia for political philosophy nor constitutional expertise.

I still believe that suppression of speech by any means (including retribution) and by any entity meets the definition of censorship…

Whatevs. Refusing to broadcast isn’t suppression. Laws against yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater are examples of censorship. This ain’t it.

No one here is saying that A&E doesn’t have the right to make the move it made re: Robertson.
No one is saying that any government (state or federal) should intervene in the situation.
And the next time some flame-throwing buddy of yours gets deep-sixed by a company, we’ll say the same thing then (even though you won’t like the same rules being implied in THAT case).
And maybe some of us will get together and get some gay lefty hero of yours fired when he/she says something that WE find offensive (and here’s betting that you’ll find all kinds of things wrong with THAT if it happens).
Now do you understand how the game is played?

Many Robertson supporters may find it prophetic that for Drudge tweet 95, Matt tweeted a quote from an American author, Caroline Myss, “Often the choice you make doesn’t matter as much as the agenda in your heart.” Arguably, by spotlighting this story on his Drudge Report and questioning what comes next on Twitter, Matt is merely harkening back to the controversy that almost, if not literally, wiped out Paula Deen earlier this year when both Walmart and Amazon dropped Paula Deen products.

Washington, D.C. — Following the fallout from a recent interview in which Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson criticized gay Americans while citing his religious beliefs, and the Robertson family’s subsequent statement suggesting his suspension from the show could end their relationship with A&E, Log Cabin Republicans has suggested mediating this dispute with a “Moonshine Summit”.

“Let’s put an end to all of the fussing and feuding and talk about this like adults,” Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Gregory T. Angelo stated. “Phil, you have your views and we have ours, but I think you’d be surprised how much we all have in common, and there’s no better gay folk out there to make that case than Log Cabin Republicans. We’re conservative, we’re guided by our faith, and we believe in freedom of speech. Most important, we are all children of God; that’s the most important thing we have in common. So in the spirit of the season, let’s get together — your family and ours — raise a glass, and work this out.”

Log Cabin Republicans is the nation’s largest Republican organization representing gay and lesbian conservatives and allies. The more than 30-year old organization has state and local Chapters nationwide — including a Chapter in Louisiana — a full-time office in Washington, DC, a federal political action committee and state political action committees.

…Log Cabin Republicans has suggested mediating this dispute with a “Moonshine Summit”.

Translation: Let’s ride this bandwagon while it’s trending. We need cash, so let’s cash in by claiming there’s a ‘dispute’, claiming this ‘dispute’ needs mediation that only we can provide, and attempt to mock Obama’s Beer Summit by engaging in the very mockery A&E hoped for by calling it a ‘Moonshine Summit’.

If someone had censored Martin Bashir’s teleprompter before he crudely attacked Sarah Palin, he’d still be employed. (The networks emply people to review scripts and monitor broadcasts. These people are called “censors.”) He would still be a piece of garbage, but he would still have his job.

Whew, such nit-picking. There is censorship and there is the act of poisoning free expression of a speaker. We can be speaking as lawyers and practitioners of the art of perfect word usage or we can speak casually as observers of life.

The bully shouts “shut up” and waves a menacing fist. Oh, but that is not true censorship in the straight and narrow sense. Agreed.

The boss says you may not make expressions of your religious belief system and retain your job. Oh, but that is not true censorship in the straight and narrow sense. Agreed.

The teacher tells a kid that Santa is white and gets put on administrative leave. Oh, but that is not true censorship in the straight and narrow sense. Agreed.

Martin Bashir goes on vacation during the firestorm following his rant that Sarah Palin deserves to have someone forcibly crap in her open mouth and pee on her face. He decides to quit his job and end the “vacation.” Oh, but that is not true censorship in the straight and narrow sense. Agreed.

But, though it is NOT censorship in the straight and narrow definition of the word, it is a damned good imitation of the purpose of censorship.

Political correctness and hate speech are other examples of “vernacular” censorship.

Typically, the Alinsky crowd reaches first for any lever that will distort the argument and derail the concept.

Phil Robertson in reality is a Christian with a strong, fairly fundamental belief system. He is well known to preach his faith. A + E made the choice to feature Phil Robertson and his clan in a reality show which included Phil Robertson in all of his well known reality. No sentient human could possibly take Phil Robertson on as an associate without knowing the reality of his system of priorities in terms of his belief system. Anything to the contrary is a dog that will not hunt. A + E can not come up with any written agreement by which Phil Robertson agreed to go publicly mute on his Christian faith and belief system. The man, despite his get up and red neck schtick is not a fool; he would never have made the agreement.

There is a subset among gays that flash their feathers and squawk endlessly about their gay status and set forth all manner of demands of how the rest of humanity is supposed to comport themselves in their presence. I liken it to the bantam rooster raising a ruckus in the whole, endless barnyard of animals. For all his noise, if he walks behind a bull making a pasture paddy, he is going to be coated without regard to his self-presumed status.

GLAAD sent forth some wet noodle who cried about how his two year old daughter might think less of her daddy because of Phil Robertson. I guess he will just have to read the GQ article to her. But why not crap all over GQ for printing the article?

Perhaps you can tell that I regard the whole nuclear aspect of this supposed devastation of civilization as an attention getting hissy-fit by someone or many someones who need to get a life.

A + E but Phil Robertson out to pasture until such time as they fire him or break him of his evil ways or something. That, of course, is not censorship in the straight and narrow sense. It is just an awfully good imitation of censorship.

So crudely attacking gays (wish Phil did) should not be censored, but crudely attacking the goddess Palin should be censored?

OK, James Edwards, I am calling you out. Either put up or shut up:

Link to the crude attack on gays made by Phil Robertson. Be very precise and articulate here. You have read it the way your mind wants to read it. Since not all of us are trapped in the narrow corridor that is your mind, be certain to explain what is crude, how it insults and how it injures.

Either Link away or slink away. You have no standing whatsoever, so taking your word that Phil Robertson is a crude attacker of gays is worth about as much as a massage from Spongebob Squarepants.

If Phil Robertson’s comments are an ‘attack’ on gays, what will you call it when some day, some grown up, somewhere, gets sick of your shrieking and screaming and punches you in your mouth, thus bloodying your pursed lips?

A grown up wouldn’t rape anyone, and since you’re a hyperventilating, bedwetting 3 year old girl I can understand how you’d make that mistake.
Besides, my guess is that Ms. Palin’s skill with firearms would be put to good use in that hypothetical.

James Edwards. What Martin Bashir and YOU both said is inciting to commit VIOLENT ASSAULT on another person. This is not what Phil Robertson said. He said NOTHING about assaulting another person. He said that homosexuality is a sin. If you find that statement “violent, malicious and hateful” but are ok proposing VIOLENT ASSAULT on another person, then you need serious therapy because those are some screwed up values you got there.

What jman said was also inciting to commit VIOLENT ASSAULT on another person.

No, Mary, I asked a “what if ?” using an instance of BATTERY as an example; the better to flesh out your hysterical use of the word ‘attack’ to describe Mr. Robertson’s remarks.
As in…if you call his remarks an ‘attack’, what would you call it if (hypothetical in which something happens to you that should have happened a long time ago)?
Or is that too nuanced for a little girl like you?

But then, you believe that if anyone tells you that everything about you isn’t perfectly lovable, then that’s a ‘violent assault’ and an ‘attack’ on gay people everywhere.
Pop a 10mg valium and go watch a Glee marathon.
You’ll feel better.

Link to the crude attack on gays made by Phil Robertson. Be very precise and articulate here. You have read it the way your mind wants to read it. Since not all of us are trapped in the narrow corridor that is your mind, be certain to explain what is crude, how it insults and how it injures.

Either Link away or slink away.

@ #67 James Edwards announces:

I’m so sorry conservatives have reading comprehension problems.

What Phil said is violent, is malicious and is hateful. Just because you hate gays doesn’t mean his speech isn’t

There you have it. James Edwards by his own ignorant attack turns on “because you hate gays doesn’t mean his (Phil’s) speech isn’t (malicious and hateful.)

I should fall on my knees and cower from this bit of blinding brilliance. Right?

Meanwhile, James Edwards has confirmed that he is entirely incapable of identifying what words constituted a “crude attack on gays” and to be able to explain why it is “crude” and how it “insults and injures.”

So, James Edwards is nothing more than a wounded sock-puppet of the whiny left who is just about on the edge of holding his breath until he turns blue …. as if a single soul in the entire universe shivs a git.

Slink away, little man. You have clearly demonstrated that you don’t have the goods.

Now, now, boys. We should admire James for living the central tenant of liberalism: for thee, not me. So James should be able to express himself to his little double rainbow-spewing heart’s content without a care in the world, but the second he hears something that puts a dampener on his day, the offender must immediately be publicly shamed and terminated from their job for the grand crime of hurting his feelings. When Person A must endure Person B’s words and actions without complaint or be punished, that isn’t tolerance or equality, that’s oppression and tyranny.

Reminds me of that scene in Game of Thrones where somebody in a crowd of peasants throws a cow pie at King Joffrey. Joffrey orders his bodyguard to find the person responsible and kill them. The crowd erupts into a riot and almost kills Joffrey. James Edwards should take that as an object lesson.

I’ve been called a “gay traitor” before. Right now, I wear that label with pride. I refuse to be lumped in with, and will actively work against, these shrieking queens who demand the upturning of American society and culture to try to relieve their neuroses and disorders. To the barricades, my fellow Americans. There’s a confrontation coming, and it’s going to be… fabulous.

…who demand the upturning of American society and culture to try to relieve their neuroses and disorders.

Or…what happens when the 3% tail is always allowed to wag the 97% dog.

And to be fair, it’s as much the fault of too many people in the 97%, who’ve given way too much latitude to unhinged freaks like Jane Edward and let them throw their tantrums and get their way with nary a comment or complaint.

There’s a confrontation coming, and it’s going to be… fabulous.

Watch what you say, or Jane Edward and Co. might get you fired from your job.
You violent and oppressive gay hater.

All of you are so intellectually dishonest and simple minded that you can even address my initial point.

If it is acceptable to remove Bashir from media outlets it must be acceptable to remove Phil Robinson. If is is not acceptable to remove Phil Robinson then it must not be acceptable to remove Bashir.

The only difference is that Bashir said nasty things about a conservative and Robinson said nasty things about gays.

If you do not agree prior statement then either 1. you want rules to only apply to conservatives or 2. you are hateful homophobes who think such language is acceptable to use toward gays. (or three both)

Oh and Sean. You’re not just a traitor and a collaborators you are a cheap sharmuta.

It’s not 1993 it’s not even 2003. The gay rights movement was successful. 18 states and 39% percent of US has marriage equality. Eventually all of the blue and blueish purple states will pass marriage equality and then a simple full faith and credit lawsuit will mean de facto gay marriage across the country. Civilized states have already passed measures like ENDA. Millennials support equal rights and old people are dying.

If a confrontation does happen y’all the wrong side. Sean and all you gay conservatives sold yourself out for nothing just like your intellectual and cowardly grandfathers- the group of thirteen.

LOL! This guy is precious! A guy saying that a woman should be subjected to somebody defecating in her mouth, a physical act of depraved violence, is the same as a man stating that he believes homosexuality is a sin but that God knows more about it then him, a theological opinion!

Oh you poor baby. Last time I checked, there’s no risk of gays getting lynched by roving gangs of straight people. And a reversal of the social course isn’t going to result in that. Your side blathers about how much you like democracy, and you’re always so but when a state goes against your point of view, well, then you bust out federal judges to overturn the people’s decision and you say “the government has spoken.” You don’t care how many lives are wrecked, opponents jailed or fined, just as long as you get your way. This situation is as ridiculous as if the state of Georgia demanded that all states adopted its state constitution.

The name-calling was disappointingly unoriginal. The old refrain of “whore” and “Jewish Nazi.” Yawn. The fact that you couldn’t actually refute me proves that you had nothing. You lost. You just pounded on the keyboard to try and get one last word in.

Get off the computer and go see a psychiatrist for that persecution complex. You may come to see that the world is not such a dangerous place after all.

If it is acceptable to remove Bashir from media outlets it must be acceptable to remove Phil Robinson. If is is not acceptable to remove Phil Robinson then it must not be acceptable to remove Bashir.

Whew!

Equivalency, any one?

Clearly, James Edwards should agree that if it is OK to set out to impeach Richard Nixon it is equally OK to attempt to impeach Clinton and even the Obamessiah. There is only the equivalency that matters, not the actions or the charges.

Ergo, using the James Edwards form of logical process, we may expect him to argue that any faith based perceived slander again gays is equivalent to fundamental Islamists actually brutally murdering gays.

James Edwards is the great hyperbole leveler. A gnat bite and a .38 calibre shot to the temple are the same thing. Both are concussive insults to the body.

The poor boy has no ability to handle anything nearing the level of critical thinking. That is why he is a liberal. Representative democracy is for adults. State socialism is for children. This cry baby is in his tantrum mode over some dirty birdie that called him a bad name. Now he wants uncle sugar to come and punish the bad man and make him cry. And he wants the whole group of gays who defended the man to be state ordered to wear a state required pink star with a slash line through it.

Go back on the playground, James Edwards, the state will punish all the bullies you report to them. Soon it will just be you and your little imaginary playmate and his talking bunny rabbit with chicken feet instead of paws.

Elizabeth Scalia, who writes as The Anchoress and is the Managing Editor for the Catholic Portal at Patheos has a terrific column up which serves as a parallel and contrast to Phil Robertson’s statements which caused such a firestorm.

For those (hardly you, James Edwards) who are intellectually curious about the church and homosexuality, I highly recommend this read: